The Religious Right and Homosexuals

IntellectualConservative.com ^ | September 27, 2002 | J. Grant Swank, Pastor

[az4vladz]

This conservative author argues that Christian conservatives should take a kinder, even welcoming, approach towards homosexuals.

Once again, Maine's religious right has the chance to extend gospel witness to the homosexual community as it has never been offered before. But it is feared that my fellow evangelicals will not lift up the gospel grace as God would have us lift it up.

Will we ever have another significant chance to do so if we continue on the worn war-path of yesteryear? Then can we anticipate any respect from anyone but ourselves if we do not reverse this hostility we have projected in the name of Jesus?

There are two major divisions within Christendom: theological liberals and theological conservatives. Regarding the homosexual issue, theological liberals have baptized the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate. They have welcomed practicing homosexuals into their congregations, their pulpits, their theological professorships and their bureaucratic office- holdings.

On the other hand, theological conservatives in the main have not extended a sincere worship welcome to practicing homosexuals. They have not aggressively gone out of their way to establish cordial bridges of converse. Instead, by and large they have positioned their evangelical stance in bitter array against anyone claiming to be homosexual.

God help the theologically conservative community!

What then can the religious right do that is religiously right regarding this issue?

First, they can stop regarding homosexuality as an issue and seize it as an opportunity to look upon homosexuals as fellow human beings with a genuine concern.

Second, they can broadcast on-goingly through the media that all homosexuals are more than welcome to their sanctuaries for worship and fellowship.

Third, they can set forth logically and compassionately their biblical understanding of the homosexual situation; that is, they can establish caring dialog in studies of Scripture, the theological conservative's criteria for deciding Christian doctrine and lifestyle.

Fourth, they can foster the democratic forum in being loving toward those with whom they disagree. It is shameful that too frequently the religious right has proceeded in a dictatorial, adversarial mode rather than a respectful, courteous manner.

Fifth, they can be willing to lose in the political forum in order to win in the neighborhoods. What if the religious right should win at the polls? If so, what will the gospel have lost in the fracas? And what harm to grace will be the residue?

Sixth, they can sidestep the political forum altogether so as to channel their energies toward sincerely extending their spiritual tidings of redemption, divine mercy and Christian love.

If anything, the theological conservative champions Jesus as his model for action. Then I would challenge the evangelical to act as Jesus acted.

For example, Jesus never evangelized through Caesar's means. He instead went into the neighborhoods where the people mingled--blessing the children, healing the sick, consoling the broken-hearted and directing confused souls toward the Father.

Jesus never badgered anyone into the eternal kingdom. Instead, He politely knocked at each heart's door, waiting patiently for response--or no response.

Jesus never stormed town halls, courts nor citadels of power. Instead, Jesus set forth truth, then permitted His hearers to do with it as they willed.

When the rich young ruler came to Jesus, inquiring how to gain eternal life, Jesus set forth the conditions. That promising young fellow disagreed with Jesus, turned away from Him, then chose for himself his own alternative lifestyle. Jesus permitted that--courteously.

So it must be with the religious right if we are going to model Jesus. We can pronounce our understanding of homosexuality in the light of Scripture, then let the chips fall where they may. In so doing, we can reach out to those with whom we disagree, doing so gently.

Truthfully, when in God's name is the evangelical community going to tear away its scowl face and put in its place the gospel face of Jesus? Are we afraid to give it a go? Is it because we really lack the faith in the gospel's power to speak to heads and hearts? And, what is more frightening, are we instead enjoying a certain power thrust in playing deity's role with this issue?

Could we not better the gospel cause if we were a bit more laid back in compassion and patience, allowing the divine the chance to open vistas that we have never dreamt of coming upon?

In Maine, this next go-round on the homosexual matter could be our last real opportunity to be thoroughly Christian. If we muff it, we will answer at the judgment.

[Gophack]

While I do not agree with many of this author's points, I do agree that we must not hate or condemn homosexuals. We are called to love our brothers and love our enemies. What we must separate is the abomination that is the homosexual act from the homosexual who is a child of God.

Homosexuality is a serious sin and must be avoided at all costs. But the homosexual must be reached out to and encouraged to put aside his tendancies and live a chaste life.

No one really knows why someone is a homosexual -- some is probably learned behavior, others maybe not -- we just don't know. But like many are celibate until marriage, homosexuals must be celibate and are called to chastity. In the Catholic Church, they are not supposed to receive Holy Communion while still engaging in homosexual acts, for example. But a homosexual who confesses his sins and leads a chaste life and adheres to the teachings of the church can receive the Eucharist.

This author is a little too easy with the words "liberal" and "conservative", but I do agree that we must do what we can to bring the Gospel to ALL people, and maybe we can turn them from their sinful ways with the grace of God.

God bless.

[RAT Patrol]

This is a bag of excuses offered in sacrifice to the politically correct with the purpose of purchasing respect. It will fail.

With this logic it is wrong for a Christian to seek political office. That's absurd!

We must engage our culture at every turn. Yes, we must be kind, but we also must be bold, firm and angry when necessary.

Will we ever have another significant chance to do so if we continue on the worn war-path of yesteryear? Then can we anticipate any respect from anyone but ourselves if we do not reverse this hostility we have projected in the name of Jesus? This is just self-blaming just like the liberals do about 9/11. This guy is at the halfway point. A little more time and he'll have bought the whole darn lie.

[jlogajan]

But like many are celibate until marriage, homosexuals must be celibate and are called to chastity.

Many heteros aren't celibate until marriage. But they hardly experience the degrees of hatred that a homosexual faces from the self-same (often hypocritical) religionoids.

[Diamond]

Sixth, they can sidestep the political forum altogether...

The wish is the parent of the thought.

Cordially,

[RAT Patrol]

heteros aren't demanding their sin be blessed by the Church. Big difference, imo.

[RAT Patrol]

And that particular thought will lead to suicide. With that argument, every genuine Christian politician ought to resign. I DON'T THINK SO! We are to be salt and light right where we are, fully participating in our world.

[Khepera]

I believe it is wrong to be in political office unless you're a Christian. Nobody else is truely qualified.

[RAT Patrol]

I know what you are saying and of course that's what I prefer. But I believe the right person for each office is whoever can get the consent of the people they represent. In my perfect world, that would be a Christian. But I don't want to win any battle unfairly. May the will of ALL the people prevail. That's the way it should be--and we will reap the consequences of our choices. That's why Christians SHOULD and in fact MUST participate. We are accountable for the actions of our Nation and our communities.

[Tribune7]

Jesus never stormed town halls, courts nor citadels of power. Instead, Jesus set forth truth, then permitted His hearers to do with it as they willed.

The Lord also never said "Go ahead and do wrong, it doesn't matter in the long run."

I have no problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with people saying homosexuality is fine give it a try. Or saying that all those condemnations of homosexuality in the Bible were written by ignorant, repressed people and should be ignored .

[babyface00]

How does the Church demand they be treated as second-class citizens (and if you're going to argue "gay marriage" forget it.)

[Marysecretary]

I work around and have known over the years as an antique dealer, many, many homosexuals. While I will never condone homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, I cannot find it in my heart to hate homosexuals. I don't like the militant homosexual agenda, in fact I hate it. I hate Nambla and other groups that glorify homosexuality. But individual homosexuals that I've known personally and quite well, will get the same kind of treatment and love that I extend to others. They know where I stand on homosexuality but they also know I care about them. I think that's what Jesus would want me to do.

[Marysecretary]

You're right, Tribune 7. I feel the same way.

[JZoback]

But they hardly experience the degrees of hatred that a homosexual faces from the self-same (often hypocritical) religionoids.

I believe the degree of hatred people feel (hate may be too harsh a word, disgust is probably what most Christians feel ) is distinguished between what is natural, normal sex verses what is unnatural and perverted sex.

All sex before marriage is a sin according to scripture, but if it is a natural act and normal behavior people understand.

Homosexual sex is a whole new ballgame, people view it as abnormal and unnatural.

That's the rub.

Probably not a whole lot to do with religionoids, as you put it.

I know lots of people who take the same position on homosexuality as I do that have not stepped in a church for years.

It's the lifestyle not the people

[Zack Nguyen]

This author is correct on a few points - Christians should boldly evangelize homosexuals. However, I cannot agree with his wish to end political action in that area. Such action by Christians are really acts of self-defense. The homosexual agenda is coming to our schools, our courts, and our culture, and however difficult must be opposed.

BTW, Jesus did indeed storm the money lenders out of the temple, using a whip. Jesus didn't do that very often, so it is not always appropriate. But the author's contention that Jesus never used raw force is incorrect. Government is God's creation, and we must be involved in some fashion.

[Zack Nguyen]

I believe it is wrong to be in political office unless you're a Christian. Nobody else is truely qualified.

I have given some thought to that. It is true that God allows many pagans to sit on many thrones, but that does not mean He is pleased with the actions of pagans. Government is His creation, ergo Christians would theoretically be the most qualified. I would always initially favor a Christian in my voting, unless the Chrsitian showed himself to be wrong on issues or unqualified. So I suppose we agree somewhat.

[Pres Raygun]

Many heteros aren't celibate until marriage. But they hardly experience the degrees of hatred that a homosexual faces from the self-same (often hypocritical) religionoids.

Actually, I see far more hate aimed at homosexuals by those who don't attend church regularly than form those who do. I also see far more hate coming from homosexuals towards Christians who refuse to accept homosexuality as normal or moral, than from Christians towards homosexuals. BTW, am I correct in assuming that when you coined the word, "religionoid", that you intended it to have a positive connotation and not a negative hate filled connotation?

[CyberCowboy777]

How are Gays second class citizens?

[AUsome Joy]

In so many ways this idea of Evangelicals hating homosexuals is like building a straw man. There are many homosexuals that are members of Evangelical churches that have repented of homosexuality and have ceased to be active in that life style. Some Christians must have reached out to them to bring them into their midst.

The gospel message is for everyone, no matter what sin that they have committed, if they repent, accept that Jesus died on the cross for their sin, and follow Him. Some of the ones that lash out at churches think that being in a church is like membership in a country club. It isn't.

At the same time, I don't deny that some so-called Christians would not accept homosexuals even if they repented, but it would make me wonder if they have ever come to grips with their own sin. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

I do not condone homosexuality and am against the homosexual lobby trying to thrust their lifestyle on us and trying to make Christians be tolerant. They do this often by trying to make us feel guilty.